So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

Like I said in the other thread, it was the liberal mindset that brought in no-fault divorce, and led to the state of marriage today so now you think we should just keep whacking away at it?? Most traditional marriage advocates would gladly vote to return divorce to the way it's meant to be.

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

Is gay marriage legal in Oregon?? Is freedom of religious expression legal in Oregon??

If you're not willing to let the two peacefully co-exist, and you try to force people to violate their religious convictions on the issue then don't complain when religious people are biased against you.

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

Like I said in the other thread, it was the liberal mindset that brought in no-fault divorce, and led to the state of marriage today so now you think we should just keep whacking away at it?? Most traditional marriage advocates would gladly vote to return divorce to the way it's meant to be.

See my comment about there being no notable movement to do that. Words are wind, my friend. Show me actions on par with SSM denial.

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

Is gay marriage legal in Oregon?? Is freedom of religious expression legal in Oregon??

If you're not willing to let the two peacefully co-exist, and you try to force people to violate their religious convictions on the issue then don't complain when religious people are biased against you.

I'm doing nothing other than nothing that the enforcement of those "religious convictions" are arbitrary and constitute double standards. No one is infringing upon their "religious expression." The solution to free speech is more free speech and that is what you see here.

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

Like I said in the other thread, it was the liberal mindset that brought in no-fault divorce, and led to the state of marriage today so now you think we should just keep whacking away at it?? Most traditional marriage advocates would gladly vote to return divorce to the way it's meant to be.

See my comment about there being no notable movement to do that. Words are wind, my friend. Show me actions on par with SSM denial.

I speak out against no-fault divorce in the same threads where I speak out against gays getting married, so my actions are on par. I have no direct effect on whether gays can marry or not.

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

Is gay marriage legal in Oregon?? Is freedom of religious expression legal in Oregon??

If you're not willing to let the two peacefully co-exist, and you try to force people to violate their religious convictions on the issue then don't complain when religious people are biased against you.

I'm doing nothing other than nothing that the enforcement of those "religious convictions" are arbitrary and constitute double standards.

So, who's to tell someone that they don't know, what their religious convictions are.

No one is infringing upon their "religious expression."

If they sue to try and penalize the businesses then yes, they are infringing on those people's religious freedoms.

The solution to free speech is more free speech and that is what you see here.

I was talking about the people who are going to end up filing suit in this case. I have no issue with exercising your right to post the argument.

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

While I do agree that these bakeries are being immensely hypocritical and stupid, I don't think that they should be sued. Airing their dirty laundry and organizing boycotts would be much more effective, especially in a blue state. It'd also avoid further feeding the Christian persecution complex, and relieve us all of some of the constant pathetic moaning on that topic.

At 5/31/2013 3:33:23 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:While I do agree that these bakeries are being immensely hypocritical and stupid, I don't think that they should be sued. Airing their dirty laundry and organizing boycotts would be much more effective, especially in a blue state. It'd also avoid further feeding the Christian persecution complex, and relieve us all of some of the constant pathetic moaning on that topic.

^^

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

I don't agree with divorce or adultery.. But adultery isn't just a physical act that makes it adultery.. It starts in the heart.. And divorce is only necessary if a person is caught in an act of adultery (cheating). I don't think one thing is worse than another.. All sin is sin!!!

"We conclude that our salvation is of The Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom He regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ. With regeneration no one will ever reject Him. God's saving grace effects what He intends to effect by it. ~ R. C. Sproul

At 5/31/2013 3:33:23 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:While I do agree that these bakeries are being immensely hypocritical and stupid, I don't think that they should be sued. Airing their dirty laundry and organizing boycotts would be much more effective, especially in a blue state. It'd also avoid further feeding the Christian persecution complex, and relieve us all of some of the constant pathetic moaning on that topic.

Why not just be adult about it and realize that their morality is different than other people's, and just move on with their lives instead of publicly trying to damage Christian-run businesses?? Find somewhere else to get the cake instead of picking a fight just to get attention drawn to the "plight of the oppressed".If you're doing your own pathetic moaning it's kind of silly to complain about someone else moaning.

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

What makes you think that "Christians" approve of either divorce or adultery? I certainly don't.

Furthermore, the accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea of making the the happiness of the parties to the marriage the purpose of marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

I don't agree with divorce or adultery.. But adultery isn't just a physical act that makes it adultery.. It starts in the heart.. And divorce is only necessary if a person is caught in an act of adultery (cheating). I don't think one thing is worse than another.. All sin is sin!!!

So committing murder is the same as stealing a candy bar to you?

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 5/31/2013 3:33:23 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:While I do agree that these bakeries are being immensely hypocritical and stupid, I don't think that they should be sued. Airing their dirty laundry and organizing boycotts would be much more effective, especially in a blue state. It'd also avoid further feeding the Christian persecution complex, and relieve us all of some of the constant pathetic moaning on that topic.

Why not just be adult about it and realize that their morality is different than other people's, and just move on with their lives instead of publicly trying to damage Christian-run businesses?? Find somewhere else to get the cake instead of picking a fight just to get attention drawn to the "plight of the oppressed".If you're doing your own pathetic moaning it's kind of silly to complain about someone else moaning.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Someone deciding NOT TO BUY CAKE FROM YOU in no way equates to their oppressing you. You do not have a right to have people buy cake from you. The intent isn't to destroy someone, it's to deprive people of OUR money when they use the power gained from it in ways which we disagree with. I would do the same thing if a cake shop refused to make a cake for an interracial couple. Someone suing you? Sure, that's oppressive and violates your rights. Someone deciding NOT to buy something from you? No siree. This is why such moaning is pathetic: you are moaning about people telling the truth about hypocritical actions and then voting with their dollar by shopping elsewhere.

This was a hilarious post to read.Such an interesting mix of dark humor and interesting issues.

Part of the real issue is financial and an aversion to change.

When you change definitions on which your society depends there are huge changes and unintended consequences.

for exampleSay the true numbers of people likely to have a "non traditional marriage" start out at less than 5% of our population. Businesses will adjust to giving marriage benefits to this small number of people. In my experience there will be people who simply "marry" to give medical benefits to a friend (new meaning to the term friend with benefits), this number is likely to grow as people figure out this trick.

If I could pay $100 for a marriage license and get full medical and dental I might be tempted to a marriage of convenience.

I am not saying this would happen.I am saying we do not know the consequences of these actions.

Change is generally most costly for those who have the most to lose.

Governments and business have the most (financially) to lose.

On to another big question . . .Should the government be involved in marriage at all?Should all marriage be a matter outside the role of government?My cynical side asks the question . . ."Would anyone care" if it were not for the big $$ at stake?Should I care if my neighbor is having sex with a man, woman or platypus?I believe government (federal) should be less involved in the affairs of private citizens, and more involved in industrial / military / policy concerns.I believe local governments should govern locally, and if you want a change in rules you can move to an area with like minded people.

That said, there would need to be checks and balances to help keep order.(National max speed limits and standardized driving rules for example, also standardized national educational tests and similar standards related involvement.

It would be hard to work out, but preferred to national government meddling in personal issues.

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

I don't agree with divorce or adultery.. But adultery isn't just a physical act that makes it adultery.. It starts in the heart.. And divorce is only necessary if a person is caught in an act of adultery (cheating). I don't think one thing is worse than another.. All sin is sin!!!

So committing murder is the same as stealing a candy bar to you?

Yes.. All sin is sin! No exceptions. :/

"We conclude that our salvation is of The Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom He regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ. With regeneration no one will ever reject Him. God's saving grace effects what He intends to effect by it. ~ R. C. Sproul

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

Hi Drafterman,

I reviewed both the article and the video but what strikes me as unfair (and I will attempt to explain why later in my reply) is that someone of a religious conviction is not allowed a choice in the matter of sticking to a principle laid out by God, and is painted as a villain to appease and accommodate a special interest group with a loud voice.

If you are going to allow one group the' right' (I would argue it is more 'the preference') to something, from this kind of standpoint, then how can you deny someone else the right to the opposite viewpoint based on their convictions? Basically when everything is permissible you have anarchy.

I am all for respect and dignity of any person regardless of race, religion, or orientation. Where I draw the line is when a group without a firm foundation or objective measure of 'right' tries to make their special interest a right for everyone.

If you want to allow marriage of a same-sex couple, why not allow the marriage of a man and his daughter, or a mother and her son, or a man and a boy, as the advocates for MAMBLA are pushing for? Why even stop there? How about the marriage of a man and his animal or any special interest group? Where does it all stop? How do you justify any of these as wrong? That is the question.

Obviously, some countries in this world view same-sex marriage as morally wrong, or at least the majority of their populations do. So what makes it right in some countries and wrong in other countries? Because it has been mandated by the ruling powers in some countries who seem to make the rules based on their position, power and preference rather than on any objective measure, logically this poses as a problem.

Here is the problem from a logical standpoint as I see it. 'A' cannot both equal 'A' and non-'A' at the same time and in the same relationship. It is illogical to say that it can. That would be like saying that 'A', a dog, is 'B' a cat. You lose the definition of what 'A'is. It becomes meaningless.

Let me put it another way. Good cannot both be good and not good (bad) at the same time and in the same relationship. Either same-sex marriage is morally good or it is not. It can't both be morally good and not morally good, logically, at the same time for this relationship.

So, how do you determine what is moral if everything is relative/open to any subjective opinion? If there is no 'best' to measure goodness against then how can there be goodness? I don't see how there can and maybe you can explain it for me.

If all goodness is is one persons subjective preference (their likes and dislikes) pitted against another persons then who is actually right?? Who gets to choose? If it is the person in power who makes that 'wise' decision for the rest of us and can enforce their decision by 'might makes right' then is what Hitler did actually wrong? Again, who gets to choose? You? Why is your opinion any 'better' than mine?

As soon as you imply 'goodness' you imply a standard in which there is a best that goodness can be measured against. By necessity that standard is God. Without Him anything goes. Without Him 'best becomes blurred and indistinguishable.

If you want to tell me that your 'opinion' is 'better' than mine then show me why it is so on the bases of an objective best. If you can't produce one then you can't have a meaningful discussion of the goodness of anything.

That is the heart of the debate, IMO.

Marriage in the eyes of Christians has always been a sacred institution mandated by God not only for the protection and promotion of the family - children, but also as a shadow of the relationship between the Lord Jesus Christ and His Bride - the church.

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

"By law... Oregon statute makes it illegal for businesses to turn away customers based on race, religion or sexual orientation. A lawyer for the couple turned away by Sweet Cakes says they are exploring their options."

I think there's an assumption that a lawsuit may happen as one of the "options".

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

What makes you think that "Christians" approve of either divorce or adultery? I certainly don't.

I didn't say approved. In fact, the whole point is that they don't, yet they're still willing to do business with divorcee's and adulterers, but not same-sex couples.

Why the two standards?

Furthermore, the accepting of same-sex marriage promotes the idea of making the the happiness of the parties to the marriage the purpose of marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order.

When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.

You're rambling.

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

I don't agree with divorce or adultery..

You think two people should stay in a marriage even if they no longer love each other?

How do we even know that the two people were in love to start with?? How can someone "stop" loving the other person?? Don't you think that maybe for someone to supposedly "stop" loving someone could be that they were just infatuated when they blindly claimed to be in love and ignorantly got married??

I believe if your married; you made a commitment under God, to your wife/husband and promised the Church you'd stay loyal to the other person. So yes, a person who goes into a marriage relationship should by any means necessary stay in their marriage regardless of how they feel. There is only ONE way married people can divorce and that's if the spouse is (cheating on them) committing adultery. Otherwise, my straight forward advice to anyone deciding to divorce would be to quit complaining.. Work it out.. What good does running from problems do?? Nothing.. It'll just make matters worse on a person throughout their short-lived life..

"We conclude that our salvation is of The Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom He regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ. With regeneration no one will ever reject Him. God's saving grace effects what He intends to effect by it. ~ R. C. Sproul

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

I don't agree with divorce or adultery..

You think two people should stay in a marriage even if they no longer love each other?

This is probably going to sound weird, especially coming from me, but marriage is a commitment which I take seriously that almost nothing -short of spousal abuse or an unsafe living environment for children- should be sufficient to end it. I think that the idea of "love" being the sole thing upon which a marriage is based is problematic, because true love is hard to recognize (insomuch as what may 'feel' like true love is nothing but infatuation, obsession, or emotionally charged lust), it may be fleeting or temporal, and above all it risks ending a marriage when passion fades and "something new" comes across.

I also don't think that physically cheating on a spouse (having sex with someone else whom one is not married to, when one is married) is a good reason to end a marriage. Emotionally cheating (actually loving someone who you are not married to) on your spouse might lead to an unhealthy environment for children, but physical cheating just satisfies urges. The difference is this: emotional cheating isn't an impulse, but physical cheating is -and no one is perfect. People make mistakes, and I think most reasonable people accept that at least implicitly.

But if people no longer love each other, I'd suggest that they make pretty damn sure that they can't remain together. A marriage doesn't have to be passionate. A stable, balanced but smoldering relationship is better than a passionate fireball of unpredictability.

At 5/31/2013 1:39:40 PM, drafterman wrote:So, we've examine the double-standard of homosexual discrimination with marriage and the fallacious procreation argument. But it extends even further.

Christians (supposedly) believe in some sort of "sanctity" of marriage or some other similar type of bullsh1t. Yet, on the whole, they really don't have anything to say regarding how the "sanctity" of marriage is consistently violated all the time through divorce and/or adultery, yet there is no significant movement to make those illegal*

So, in a more humorous, but more broadly scoped, manner, other examples of the double-standard of homosexual discrimination:

* - I am aware of specific local efforts to do things such as outlaw divorce, I'm not aware of anything that has the same amount of backing, recognition, or support as anti-gay movements.

I don't agree with divorce or adultery..

You think two people should stay in a marriage even if they no longer love each other?

How do we even know that the two people were in love to start with??

No one has any right to say except for the people involved.

How can someone "stop" loving the other person??

People change.

Don't you think that maybe for someone to supposedly "stop" loving someone could be that they were just infatuated when they blindly claimed to be in love and ignorantly got married??

Maybe. If that were the case, it would be a good idea for those people to get a divorce.

I believe if your married; you made a commitment under God, to your wife/husband and promised the Church you'd stay loyal to the other person. So yes, a person who goes into a marriage relationship should by any means necessary stay in their marriage regardless of how they feel.

There is only ONE way married people can divorce and that's if the spouse is (cheating on them) committing adultery. Otherwise, my straight forward advice to anyone deciding to divorce would be to quit complaining.. Work it out.. What good does running from problems do?? Nothing.. It'll just make matters worse on a person throughout their short-lived life..

Seriously, have you considered this point-of-view at all? You want people to be stuck with each other out of obligation instead of happiness.

What if one spouse is beating the other? In that case, I think "running" from the problem is a very good idea.

I reviewed both the article and the video but what strikes me as unfair (and I will attempt to explain why later in my reply) is that someone of a religious conviction is not allowed a choice in the matter of sticking to a principle laid out by God, and is painted as a villain to appease and accommodate a special interest group with a loud voice.

That isn't unfairness, that's society. Besides, they don't seem to be as committed to sticking to the principles of fidelity.

If you are going to allow one group the' right' (I would argue it is more 'the preference') to something, from this kind of standpoint, then how can you deny someone else the right to the opposite viewpoint based on their convictions? Basically when everything is permissible you have anarchy.

No one is denying them that view point. You are free to have your opinion, and other people are free to ridicule you for it. No one is, or is trying to, censor these people. They have been given the opportunity to express themselves, and those expressions have revealed that they have a double standard. No one forced them to act like fools; they did that of their own accord.

I am all for respect and dignity of any person regardless of race, religion, or orientation. Where I draw the line is when a group without a firm foundation or objective measure of 'right' tries to make their special interest a right for everyone.

No one is doing that here. You must have read a different article.

If you want to allow marriage of a same-sex couple, why not allow the marriage of a man and his daughter, or a mother and her son, or a man and a boy, as the advocates for MAMBLA are pushing for? Why even stop there? How about the marriage of a man and his animal or any special interest group? Where does it all stop? How do you justify any of these as wrong? That is the question.

You've gone a bit off topic.

Obviously, some countries in this world view same-sex marriage as morally wrong, or at least the majority of their populations do. So what makes it right in some countries and wrong in other countries? Because it has been mandated by the ruling powers in some countries who seem to make the rules based on their position, power and preference rather than on any objective measure, logically this poses as a problem.

Here is the problem from a logical standpoint as I see it. 'A' cannot both equal 'A' and non-'A' at the same time and in the same relationship. It is illogical to say that it can. That would be like saying that 'A', a dog, is 'B' a cat. You lose the definition of what 'A'is. It becomes meaningless.

Let me put it another way. Good cannot both be good and not good (bad) at the same time and in the same relationship. Either same-sex marriage is morally good or it is not. It can't both be morally good and not morally good, logically, at the same time for this relationship.

So, how do you determine what is moral if everything is relative/open to any subjective opinion? If there is no 'best' to measure goodness against then how can there be goodness? I don't see how there can and maybe you can explain it for me.

If all goodness is is one persons subjective preference (their likes and dislikes) pitted against another persons then who is actually right?? Who gets to choose? If it is the person in power who makes that 'wise' decision for the rest of us and can enforce their decision by 'might makes right' then is what Hitler did actually wrong? Again, who gets to choose? You? Why is your opinion any 'better' than mine?

As soon as you imply 'goodness' you imply a standard in which there is a best that goodness can be measured against. By necessity that standard is God. Without Him anything goes. Without Him 'best becomes blurred and indistinguishable.

If you want to tell me that your 'opinion' is 'better' than mine then show me why it is so on the bases of an objective best. If you can't produce one then you can't have a meaningful discussion of the goodness of anything.

That is the heart of the debate, IMO.

Marriage in the eyes of Christians has always been a sacred institution mandated by God not only for the protection and promotion of the family - children, but also as a shadow of the relationship between the Lord Jesus Christ and His Bride - the church.